At 08:17 9/09/99 +0000, John Wilson wrote:
>Is the United Nations' Covenant on Civil and Political Rights binding on
>Australia? For example, Article 14 says that "everybody shall be entitled
>to a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial
>tribunal established by law".
While I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, from what I've been told, the Federal
government (represented by the Foreign Minister, Prime Minister or whoever)
will sign a treaty, and then legislation will be passed giving force to
that treaty. For example, an International Labour Organisation (backed?)
treaty was signed regarding unfair dismissal - protecting workers. This
treaty held little meaning until the Federal Government passed legislation
creating the unfair dismissal laws.
Signing the treaty was (and remains) necessary due to the split of powers
between the Federal and State governments. Industrial relations, for
example, is a State power. Foreign Affairs is a Federal power. The
Federal government must sign a treaty (exercising its power with regard to
interactions with other countries) before it can then make laws regarding
matters which lie in State powers (which I think your matter does). Once
the Federal law is passed, it overrules State laws on the same matter if
they conflict. The High Court has supported this view of Federal powers
overriding State powers in matters which - strictly speaking - the Federal
government should have no power.
>In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I am saying that I can only have
>trial by jury because I will subpoena judges, as judicial corruption is a
>major component of my case and, therefore, no judge can be such a
>tribunal as demanded by the UN covenant. Justice Scully, in his judgement,
> said "It is, I think, sufficient to say of those submissions that they
>are, in my respectful view, wholly and transparently without merit either
>in law or in fact and I reject them.".
He'd know the law better than I do, of course - but if you're after
independent confirmation I hope you've got a lot of money at hand, because
you'll need it to pay for proper, qualified legal advice.
>With the High Court declaring, in the Heather Hill case, that "the Queen
>is a foreign power", and as the Governor-General in her representative,
>can Australia even enter into United Nations' treaties?
Of course it can - for eighty years Australia's been recognised as a
sovereign nation in its own right. I strongly suspect the Governor-General
does not sign Australia treaties - typically a Government Minister would
sign on behalf of the Parliament. The Hill case was relatively
straightforward, from what I've been told. Whether it has any
ramifications for other sitting members, I don't know. I did notice that
One Nation immediately put out racist comments, to quote, "members (of
Parliament) of Greek descent, I have been told, can not legally renounce
citizenship" and so should be disqualified from Parliament. Further
comment on pro-One Nation pages made similar comments about Jews.
Alister
--
"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of Human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
